US Presidential Election 2020

Hande hoche!

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair to Steyer compared to the likes of Bloomberg who is a Republican just minus the hate and guns and Buttigieg and Biden who are out and out corporate Democrats he actually comes over fairly well.

Out of the two, he is the more preferable one. Reckon Steyer could end up with a few delegates.

pixelburp wrote: »

Steyer and Bloomberg both appear to be candidates mistaking marketing & ad campaigns as real, tangible campaigning and doorstepping. Seems like the most imprint they've had on the Primaries is to merely be "that guy who runs all those ads". Bloomberg at least came with the added bonus of having Corporate News Media attempt to inflate his importance.

Might eat into the percentages in the next few states, might lower a few other contenders below the 15% Threshold.
The constant disclaimers and references on the Bloomberg TV channel are mildly amusing. Must make an effort to watch their coverage after the next debate.

Englo

I have not noticed much of him, but steyer does actually seem like a good guy who wants to improve the lot for others. From what I have seen he is probably the furthest to the left after sanders and maybe Warren, I don't know that he seriously thought he would win (at least not for the last several months) but he seems to be looking to spread a message somewhat also. A bit like Andrew yang, but with more of an eye on winning which I think is something yang 100% must have known was not happening from day one (hence making his whole platform about his main point - UBI and automation).

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Bernie sanders will be a terrible nominee for the democrats IMO. He's not as bad as trump but he's as inflexible as trump on his positions. He seems to not want or like to compromise on those positions. It'll be two candidates of the extremes of the political system in America and it's going to be unpleasant. I also see that Bernie sanders won't be releasing any more medical info about his health despite the fact that he's 78 and had a heart attack not that long ago. I think that's worrying.

Great. A good negotiating starting point.

Unlike Trump, Bernie will actually do something for the working man and woman.

friendlyfun

I noticed Andrew Yang wasn't included in this poll, yet he probably had a better chance than a good few of those listed.

vladmydad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Great. A good negotiating starting point.

Unlike Trump, Bernie will actually do something for the working man and woman.

Like giving them record low unemployment, real wage increase in 40 years, half a million manufacturing jobs, cutting their taxes, saving steel and coal.

duploelabs

friendlyfun wrote: »

I noticed Andrew Yang wasn't included in this poll, yet he probably had a better chance than a good few of those listed.

Except Andrew Yang has dropped out a few weeks ago

vladmydad

eire4 wrote: »

The so called Reaganomics were actually the creation of Milton Friedman and the adoption of the Fridemanite disaster capitalism since then in the US with even the corporate takeover of the Democrats meaning that the US has been dominated by far right economics designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful. The export of Disaster capitalism has been a core tenet of US so called foreign policy with the US bullying various countries into imposing these economic policies on their populations rather then being allowed to govern without US interference in their own populations own best interests. The US behaviour throughout central and south America being prime examples.

And god bless Reagan for it. Did you see what the American economy was like before him, what a dump New York was in the 70’s. Reaganomics gave the west 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. The democrats said the malaise of the 70’s was the new normal, that The Soviet Union was permanent. At the same time Sanders was calling for the nationalization of all industry. And as Reagan was putting the final death nail into communism, in the late 80’s, Sanders was honeymooning in Moscow. You couldn’t make it up. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

Wanderer78

vladmydad wrote:

And god bless Reagan for it. Did you see what the American economy was like before him, what a dump New York was in the 70’s. Reaganomics gave the west 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. The democrats said the malaise of the 70’s was the new normal, that The Soviet Union was permanent. At the same time Sanders was calling for the nationalization of all industry. And as Reagan was putting the final death nail into communism, in the late 80’s, Sanders was honeymooning in Moscow. You couldn’t make it up. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

....and thank God for rapidly accelerating wealth inequality, declining life expectancy for many, increasing worker insecurities for many, stagnating wage inflation for many, forcing many to taking on more than one job just to survive, declining public infrastructure, all leading to one of the biggest economic crashes of all time, leaving millions of Americans with effectively no health care cover, whereby now, 1 in 4 cancer patients ends up in bankruptcy. Yea, the neoliberal approach certainly has been truly great!

vladmydad

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....and thank God for rapidly accelerating wealth inequality, declining life expectancy for many, increasing worker insecurities for many, stagnating wage inflation for many, forcing many to taking on more than one job just to survive, declining public infrastructure, all leading to one of the biggest economic crashes of all time, leaving millions of Americans with effectively no health care cover, whereby now, 1 in 4 cancer patients ends up in bankruptcy. Yea, the neoliberal approach certainly has been truly great!

Wealth inequality is great. The “poor” now live better than Louis the 14th. iPhone, flat screen TVs etc. wealthy people are richer and “poorer” people are richer. Americans have the best cancer survival rates in the world. And invent 80% of medicines and medical devices, thanks to private companies and free markets. As for infrastructure etc well America pays for the national security of Europe, South Korea and Japan. That’s what Trump was taking about with “America first”. Instead of working out an infrastructure bill the Dems chose to impeach him lol

super_furry

Why do I feel like this wholesale public rejection of Bloomberg is going to turn out to be a super-villain origin story?

pixelburp

vladmydad wrote: »

Wealth inequality is great. The “poor” now live better than Louis the 14th. iPhone, flat screen TVs etc. wealthy people are richer and “poorer” people are richer. Americans have the best cancer survival rates in the world. And invent 80% of medicines and medical devices, thanks to private companies and free markets. As for infrastructure etc well America pays for the national security of Europe, South Korea and Japan. That’s what Trump was taking about with “America first”. Instead of working out an infrastructure bill the Dems chose to impeach him lol

Wealth or success is not measured by access to shiny toys, frankly that's kinda insulting to reduce existential concerns to access to distractions: it's about availing of education, affordable health services and job security or good wages. Certainly in American terms, the former two are squeezing the poorer, with Health a particularly shocking situation (certainly myself + my wife would be financially ruined were it not for social medicine here, as we have a couple of longterm health issues to pay out for). Parts of America live below the poverty line.

Meanwhile the "Gig Economy" and poison like Zero-Hour contracts becoming more of a reality, job security is no longer a guarantee stepping out from school. Unions are increasingly irrelevant. At least in your bizarre example of 800 years ago (WTF?), jobs were trades performed for life that often came with guilds and unions to look after workers: trying to earn a living juggling between Uber, Lyft or whatnot can be a poverty trap. Even if you look at modern demographics, part of millennials' frustration is that they ISN'T the kind of concept of "a job for life" that existed in the time of parents from the 50s, 60s, 70s. They inherit massive debt while having none of the same securities their parents had.

Commissar

Guys, does anyone have a link to a recording of the Democratic debate last night - I was going to listen to it when I got the chance but I'm having trouble finding a recording to listen to.
Any podcast suggestions or mp3's I can download that have the full debate?

Water John

Didn't see the debate but it won't enlighten you much by all accounts. Poorly moderated leading to no coherent debate.

sid waddell

1700 dollars for a ticket last night. No wonder Bloomberg was the only one able to afford the tickets, which he gave to his paid supporters.

The problem was they made it just a wee bit obvious that they were paid.

sid waddell

pixelburp wrote: »

Wealth or success is not measured by access to shiny toys, frankly that's kinda insulting to reduce existential concerns to access to distractions: it's about availing of education, affordable health services and job security or good wages. Certainly in American terms, the former two are squeezing the poorer, with Health a particularly shocking situation (certainly myself + my wife would be financially ruined were it not for social medicine here, as we have a couple of longterm health issues to pay out for). Parts of America live below the poverty line.

Meanwhile the "Gig Economy" and poison like Zero-Hour contracts becoming more of a reality, job security is no longer a guarantee stepping out from school. Unions are increasingly irrelevant. At least in your bizarre example of 800 years ago (WTF?), jobs were trades performed for life that often came with guilds and unions to look after workers: trying to earn a living juggling between Uber, Lyft or whatnot can be a poverty trap. Even if you look at modern demographics, part of millennials' frustration is that they ISN'T the kind of concept of "a job for life" that existed in the time of parents from the 50s, 60s, 70s. They inherit massive debt while having none of the same securities their parents had.

I've noticed this as an actual "talking point" among Trump supporters more and more lately - lecturing the poor that they they're richer than people who lived hundreds of years ago because, hey, mobile phones exist.

They should go to one of the many cardboard cities that exist across the US and tell the people who inhabit them how well off they are.

Penn

sid waddell wrote: »

1700 dollars for a ticket last night. No wonder Bloomberg was the only one able to afford the tickets, which he gave to his paid supporters.

The problem was they made it just a wee bit obvious that they were paid.

Yeah I think I read something about how the audience booed when it was suggested Bloomberg should release his tax returns, which should be enough of an indication that people were paid to be there for Bloomberg.

Red for Danger

Bloomberg openly said he bought congress.
Btw, he said this in a speech to Goldman Sachs in 2016 saying Congress were like children they needed to be bribed.

Pete's obama coaches should be proud as they're work is complete.

Boo's for Warren when she went on another Bloomberg v women rant. I think it was 3k a seat maybe they had different prices so...
Looks suspicious

Really it was up to the others to take sanders down and they didn't.

spacecoyote

Commissar wrote: »

Guys, does anyone have a link to a recording of the Democratic debate last night - I was going to listen to it when I got the chance but I'm having trouble finding a recording to listen to.
Any podcast suggestions or mp3's I can download that have the full debate?

Think this is it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klDbFuxmXrA

seamus

Red for Danger wrote: »

Really it was up to the others to take sanders down and they didn't.

They can't. They have nothing.

Sanders at this stage is unstoppable, and if the DNC decide to select someone else (especially Bloomberg), then I can genuinely see the Republicans taking control in the US for a decade or more.

I've seen remarks around that "Moderates would rather vote for Trump than Sanders". This is "silent majority" nonsense. Anyone who would vote for Trump is not a moderate. The idea that a "centrist", i.e. a rational individual, would vote for a right-wing sociopath over a centrist humanitarian, is nonsense. Sanders is providing a very real alternative for moderate voters, and that's what has the DNC so alarmed.

Bloomberg is a last-ditch attempt by the US oligarchy to put one of them in the driving seat. They succeeded with Clinton last time, but with Biden collapsing so badly this time around, they've panicked and Bloomberg is throwing all his money at this to make it happen.

They knew Sanders was a strong contender, but they thought Joe had enough momentum to carry him through, even if they had to fudge it a bit.

Turns out nobody likes Biden. Or Buttigieg. Or even Bloomberg.

The only thing worse for the DNC than losing to Trump in November is having a candidate that's been selected by the voters rather than the DNC.

AbusesToilets

I was disappointed that nobody bit back at Buttigieg repeated statements regarding the importance of the Senate and Congress races. I was waiting for Sanders to tell him that if he was so concerned with Congress, then maybe he ought to focus and running for that instead of wasting everybody's time running for the Presidency.

nigeldaniel

Why the fuss about Bloomberg's spending his own money, they all spend money although it's nearly always someone else's.

briany

Are those people booing me, Smithers?

No, they're saying Bloooooooom-berg.

Foxtrol

seamus wrote: »

They can't. They have nothing.

Sanders at this stage is unstoppable, and if the DNC decide to select someone else (especially Bloomberg), then I can genuinely see the Republicans taking control in the US for a decade or more.

The exact same risk is there with Bernie as the nominee.

I've seen remarks around that "Moderates would rather vote for Trump than Sanders". This is "silent majority" nonsense. Anyone who would vote for Trump is not a moderate. The idea that a "centrist", i.e. a rational individual, would vote for a right-wing sociopath over a centrist humanitarian, is nonsense. Sanders is providing a very real alternative for moderate voters, and that's what has the DNC so alarmed.

Bloomberg is a last-ditch attempt by the US oligarchy to put one of them in the driving seat. They succeeded with Clinton last time, but with Biden collapsing so badly this time around, they've panicked and Bloomberg is throwing all his money at this to make it happen.

They knew Sanders was a strong contender, but they thought Joe had enough momentum to carry him through, even if they had to fudge it a bit.

Turns out nobody likes Biden. Or Buttigieg. Or even Bloomberg.

The only thing worse for the DNC than losing to Trump in November is having a candidate that's been selected by the voters rather than the DNC.

Their combined vote is more than Bernie's.

Moderates are shooting themselves in the foot by candidates being too stubborn to drop out.

Manic Moran

Lots of pandering to black voters, including a promise to place a black female on the Supreme Court. (Am I wrong in thinking that the President should be given a bunch of files with names and photos blanked out and just pick who he thinks is best qualified?). Obviously this is for South Carolina.

However, next week is Super Tuesday. Quite a few Hispanics voting in Texas and California. Nobody seemed to be targeting them, and immigration as a topic barely got a mention.

I’m one of next week’s voters. I think I have made my choice. For whatever good it will do.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

The exact same risk is there with Bernie as the nominee.



Their combined vote is more than Bernie's.

Moderates are shooting themselves in the foot by candidates being too stubborn to drop out.

The stats don't necessarily back up what I presume you're suggesting: that (say) Biden supporters would instead vote for Buttigieg were the former to drop out; this article is from December, but 538 ran the numbers and found that with Biden gone, his supporters would lean primarily towards Sanders:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/

There's also the "front runner" effect; when Buttigieg drops out, presumably Sanders' lead will be such that the simple math for many Democrats will be to get behind the main man, rather than stick with their actual preferred remaining candidate.

Englo

briany wrote: »

Are those people booing me, Smithers?

No, they're saying Bloooooooom-berg.

Actually, they weren't booing him. They very clearly were cheering every last thing he said.

And they were booing all of the others, even for criticising billionaires or asking Bloomberg to release his tax return. I'm pretty sure Warren got a severe booing when she brought up his NDAs at one point too.

Keeping in mind that tickets cost $1,700 which a) is absurd in the extreme, and b) many south Carolinians could not afford and would need to have bought for them... well, I'll leave you to do the maths.

Englo

Manic Moran wrote: »

(Am I wrong in thinking that the President should be given a bunch of files with names and photos blanked out and just pick who he thinks is best qualified?). Obviously this is for South Carolina.

It is a unfortunate, but yes you are wrong. The republicans have politicized the supreme court to the point that it absolutely not cannot be treated as was intended or in any objective way. Kavanaugh didn't seal that though, it was done when republicans decided to break constitutional conventions and refuse anyone Obama put forward, even someone they suggested (Merrick Garland).

Everyone here knows well that Trump and McConnell have made it one of their highest priorities to stuff every court with right wingers, even if they are not qualified, and half the country either do not care or actively love it.

Your country and its governmental infrastructures are crumbling around you from these types of attacks, this being yet another example, and you guys are just sitting ignoring it.

rossie1977

If DNC hated Sanders that much they wouldn't allow him to run on their ticket surely. Bloomberg entering race has only hurt Biden so if that was a big DNC plan that makes no sense. Bloomberg entered race in December when Biden was comfortably leading every poll.

Yes the whole awarding delegates thing stinks but is the electoral college all that much better. There you can get the most votes and still lose

Clinton still garnered more votes than Sanders in the actual primaries in 2016. Removing the caucuses:

Clinton won in South Carolina (by 180,000 votes), in Alabama (by 234,000), Arkansas (by 80,000), Georgia (by 330,000), Massachusetts (by 17,000), Tennessee (by 125,000), Texas (by 460,000), Virginia (by 229,000), Louisiana (by 149,000), Nebraska (by 5,000), Mississippi (by 150,000), Florida (by 532,000), Illinois (by 40,000), Missouri (by 1,500), North Carolina (by 156,000), Ohio (by 161,000), Arizona (by 69,000), New York (by 314,000), Connecticut (by 18,000), Delaware (by 19,000), Maryland (by 273,000), Pennsylvania (by 233,000), Kentucky (by 2,000), California (by 364,000), New Jersey (by 228,000), New Mexico (by 7,000), South Dakota (by 1,000), District of Columbia (by 56,000)

Sanders won in New Hampshire (by 57,000), Colorado (by 23,000), Oklahoma (by 35,000), Vermont (by 97,000), Michigan (by 18,000), Wisconsin (by 127,000), Rhode Island (by 14,000),
Indiana (by 32,000), West Virginia (by 37,000), Oregon (by 91,000), Montana (by 9,000)

So in the states people actually got to vote Clinton did better. In a general election that would be 392 electoral college votes to 79

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

The stats don't necessarily back up what I presume you're suggesting: that (say) Biden supporters would instead vote for Buttigieg were the former to drop out; this article is from December, but 538 ran the numbers and found that with Biden gone, his supporters would lean primarily towards Sanders:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/

There's also the "front runner" effect; when Buttigieg drops out, presumably Sanders' lead will be such that the simple math for many Democrats will be to get behind the main man, rather than stick with their actual preferred remaining candidate.

Agree to a point but it is hard to say whether a good proportion of those Biden voters haven't already abandoned Biden to Sanders since that December poll.

Though the front runner effect will definitely impact where votes go it isn't really a sign of 'likability', which is the point I was responding to.

Even with the disparate group of moderates, Bernie hasn't yet been able to come close to a plurality of votes. He basically had the same result as Pete across the first 2 states and got 34% of the first count in Nevada. If 'nobody' likes the other candidates, then people barely like Bernie (I'm not claiming this myself).

Foxtrol

rossie1977 wrote: »

If DNC hated Sanders that much they wouldn't allow him to run on their ticket surely. Bloomberg entering race has only hurt Biden so if that was a big DNC plan that makes no sense. Bloomberg entered race in December when Biden was comfortably leading every poll.

Yes the whole awarding delegates thing stinks but is the electoral college all that much better. There you can get the most votes and still lose

Clinton still garnered more votes than Sanders in the actual primaries in 2016. Removing the caucuses:

Clinton won in South Carolina (by 180,000 votes), in Alabama (by 234,000), Arkansas (by 80,000), Georgia (by 330,000), Massachusetts (by 17,000), Tennessee (by 125,000), Texas (by 460,000), Virginia (by 229,000), Louisiana (by 149,000), Nebraska (by 5,000), Mississippi (by 150,000), Florida (by 532,000), Illinois (by 40,000), Missouri (by 1,500), North Carolina (by 156,000), Ohio (by 161,000), Arizona (by 69,000), New York (by 314,000), Connecticut (by 18,000), Delaware (by 19,000), Maryland (by 273,000), Pennsylvania (by 233,000), Kentucky (by 2,000), California (by 364,000), New Jersey (by 228,000), New Mexico (by 7,000), South Dakota (by 1,000), District of Columbia (by 56,000)

Sanders won in New Hampshire (by 57,000), Colorado (by 23,000), Oklahoma (by 35,000), Vermont (by 97,000), Michigan (by 18,000), Wisconsin (by 127,000), Rhode Island (by 14,000),
Indiana (by 32,000), West Virginia (by 37,000), Oregon (by 91,000), Montana (by 9,000)

So in the states people actually got to vote Clinton did better. In a general election that would be 392 electoral college votes to 79

No matter what way you cut the votes, Clinton beat Sanders.

His moaning at the time and since makes me fear he'd just be another Trump if he won the presidency. His way or the highway, if it doesn't work then blame everyone else.